Memeorandum

November 17, 2006

Jane Harman Is *NOT* "Currently" Under Investigation

One of the talking points being offered in defense of Nancy Pelosi's plan to dump Jane Harman as House Intel Chair is that she is "currently under federal investigation" for her "possible illegal enlistment of AIPAC in lobbying for her committee post" (quoting Matt Yglesias); Glenn Greenwald offers this as "is currently under investigation for her work on behalf of AIPAC".

From Mr. Yglesias I expect better - let me offer a steaming mug of reality to the reality based community, from the NY Times, with helpful emphasis added:

The officials, confirming a Time magazine report, said the bureau
had been looking into whether she had made improper promises to the
group in exchange for its efforts to lobby Ms. Pelosi on her behalf.

But the officials also said that the accusations had not been
proved and that although the inquiry remained open, it was no longer
being actively pursued.

Federal law enforcement sources confirmed yesterday that the FBI opened an investigation in 2005 into whether Rep. Jane Harman
(D-Calif.) improperly enlisted the aid of a pro-Israel lobbying group,
but they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

...Although the case is still considered open, officials said, the
allegations have not been substantiated, and there has been no
significant investigative activity on the issue in recent months. The
inquiry was first reported by Time magazine.

Last week, the Web site time.com reported that the FBI had begun
probing whether [Harman] enlisted the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee's help in lobbying Pelosi to keep her job.

A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of
anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, told The Associated
Press that Harman's ties with AIPAC have been under scrutiny since last
year.

However, the inquiry has been dormant in recent months and so far
has failed to turn up evidence of illegal activity, said the official,
who would not detail any concerns there might be.]

It is quite rare for the Feds to formally close an investigation, because who knows what tomorrow may bring in the way of new evidence. But neither Greenwald nor Yglesias have offered any evidence to support their contention that the investigation is current. She was under investigation for engaging in politics, and now she is not.

As to the substance of the charge against her, my goodness - she calls the DoJ to inquire about an intel-related case (perfectly legal), AIPAC tells Pelosi she is doing a great job (perfectly legal), and that adds up to a crime?

By that standard, let me propose another criminal investigation - the Congressional Black Caucus throws their support to Pelosi in exchange for a promise that one of their own will be elevated to chair of the House Intel committee. The quid, the pro, and the quo all seem to be there - where is the investigation?

Well, there won't be one, nor should there be, because that is absolutely politics as usual, as was Harman's phone call on behalf of AIPAC.

All that said, if the leading lights of the left could sail back to reality and correct this "current" problem, I know we would welcome them. We'll leave the light on.

WHILE I'M PLAYING EDITOR: Ezra Klein of TAPPED offers this bit of incomplete history in defense of Pelosi's acumen:

And Crowley should inform "Reader A. M." that the
Hammer would have understood. In 1995, he ran for Majority Whip and
defeated the preferred candidate of that Definer Of The Rules Of
Civilization, Newt Gingrich. I don't recall anyone
commenting at the time how weak Gingrich "seemed" or that he put on a
"game face" after this crushing blow to his new Republican majority.

Let's go the incomparable Times archives, a compelling value as part of the Times Select package which also includes daily access to great commentary by the Times top columnists (NO, I am not paid enough for this; go with the "it's five o'clock somewhere" theory):

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 (Special to The New York Times) --
Representative Newt Gingrich announced today that he would support a
longtime ally, Representative Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania, in a
three-way contest for the No. 3 leadership position in the House.

Mr.
Walker, who is beginning his 19th year in Congress, is running against
Tom DeLay of Texas and Bill McCollum of Florida for majority whip.
Representative Dick Armey of Texas faces no opposition in his pursuit
of the No. 2 job, majority leader.

Mr. Gingrich's press
secretary, Tony Blankley, said tonight that Mr. Gingrich, who is
expected to become Speaker, would vote for Mr. Walker but not actively
campaign for him.

Just a guess, but it was Ms. Pelosi's decision to actively push for Murtha that turned this into a spectacle and her into a Peloser.

CLASSIC GREENWALD: Folks who can't endure the link will miss this old rhetorical standby from Greenwald. Here we are in paragraphs fifteen-sixteen, learning that the cause of the Pelosi-Harman personal rift is reported but unproven:

I'd like to see proof that Pelosi's opposition to Harman is purely or
even principally personal. I keep hearing this from [reporters], but what is
it based on? ...

How do these
all-knowing analysts know that Pelosi's opposition to Harman isn't
based on these obvious and compelling substantive grounds, as opposed
to the bitchy personal "cat fights" they allegedly have had?

Clear? Reporters say their is a personal animosity, but they don't say why.

Yet by paragraph twenty-one, the reporters have no foundation at all for their beliefs:

...these self-styled "serious" journalists are already trying to cripple
Pelosi's ability to do anything before she has even begun, all based on
giggly chit-chat and gossipy garbage that has no legitimacy other than
the fact that they all repeat it in unison on television and in print.

Somewhere in those five paragraphs Greenwald made it from not knowing their proof to knowing they had no proof, reminding me yet again that I could never cut it in the reality based community.

From the Time Magazine article linked to in my post (but not linked to, unsurprisingly, in yours - why let your readers see the evidence that contradicts the fantasies you're feeding them?) - helpful emphasis added:

The Department of Justice is investigating whether Rep. Jane Harman and the pro-Israel group worked together to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee

Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government.

The sources tell TIME that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has simmered out of sight since about the middle of last year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf.

The Time article makes clear that the invesitgation *IS* ongoing, and the NYT article you quote also says that the investigation is *OPEN*. The DoJ has the ability to *CLOSE* an investigation, but it has not done so here.

Of course, you chose to highlight the NYT article, rather than TIME article (which you concealed from your readers), because you think the NYT is a more credible source, not because its article was slightly more favorable to a political figure you like.

Finally, why don't you ask yourself why you are so eager to defend Democrat Jane Harman. The answer is the same one that is driving Nancy Pelosi to choose someone else for this critical spot. Americans rejected the views that you have about wars and foreign affairs and the last thing Pelosi ought to do is install someone in such a sensitive position who thinks the way you do.

Glenn, before we continue, please tell us what law precludes a lobying group from lobbying for a supporter to hold a chairmanship.

Then, tell us how Pelosi's lunatic notion to appoint Alcee comports with her earlier statement that she intended to give the chairs to existing members of committees to retain in place those who had more experience on the issues dealt with by those committees.

Glenn, before we continue, please tell us what law precludes a lobying group from lobbying for a supporter to hold a chairmanship.

I didn't say anyone violated any law. I only said that there is an ongoing DOJ investigation, which there is.

But what *WOULD* violate the law is if she agreed with AIPAC to a quid pro quo where she agreed to lobby for a more lenient prosecution for the accused AIPAC spies in exchange for AIPAC's lobbying on her behalf for the Committee Chair. TIME suggests that that is part of the investigation, and that would most assuredy be illegal.

But I have no idea if Harman did anything wrong and I didn't say I do. Many people are under investigation for things that end up going nowhere. That is why I didn't claim that she is guilty of any crime - because I don't know - only that there is an ongoing investigation, which is excactly what TIME reported (which you wouldn't have known had I not posted that here, because your host chose to conceal it from you to leave the impression that there is no evidence supporting the claim).

Then, tell us how Pelosi's lunatic notion to appoint Alcee comports with her earlier statement that she intended to give the chairs to existing members of committees to retain in place those who had more experience on the issues dealt with by those committees.

She doesn't have to appoint Hastings and she shouldn't. There is no seniority on the House Intelligence Committees. Appointments are purely at the discretion of the Speaker.

This issue with Harman was around well before the election when she made clear that she wouldn't appoint Harman. I have no idea if the AIPAC investigation is one of the reasons, though I strongly suspect that the fact that she shares the same views that are popular here on national security and war - the same ones the American people just resoundingly rejected -- is a strong factor, and it ought to be.

I didn't say anyone violated any law. I only said that there is an ongoing DOJ investigation, which there is Ah, and there's the rub. You get folks to file complaints to the FBI on non-existent violations and then smear them by saying they're under FBI investigation.

Well, the swift thinkers at the FBI figured this out and directed no more confirmation of such investigations but didn't do it until after the election for some reason.

Ah, and there's the rub. You get folks to file complaints to the FBI on non-existent violations and then smear them by saying they're under FBI investigation.
. . . Smarmy leftist punks.Stupid media. And even dumber FBI officials.

Yeah, that was the Left's strategy for the election - to get as many criminal investigations as possible started against Democratic elected officials like Harman, so that there would be pending criminal investigations against Democrats.

Very sharp of you to detect that. No sly Leftist plot will go undetected here, I see.

The Time article makes clear that the invesitgation *IS* ongoing, and the NYT article you quote also says that the investigation is *OPEN*. The DoJ has the ability to *CLOSE* an investigation, but it has not done so here.

Please - the TIME article broke the story and the Times followed up.

As to the notion that I have not been covering the Alcee Hastings watch, guess again - I discussed the TIME piece the day it came out, thanks.

However, I am coming up dry at Greenwald - gee, this only became important after the election; I wonder why.

And of course, a NYT article written a few days after a TIME article is much more reliable because it was written a few days later.

The Tom Maguire Method of determining who is right: whoever speaks last is correct. That's a very insightful metric you've developed, which I'm sure is applied very consistently, even when it reflects poorly on political figures you love less than Harman.

And just by the way, this sentence in your post -- "She was under investigation for engaging in politics" - is a lie, unless you think that it's just "politics" for a politician to agree to pressure the DOJ for relaxed prosecution of the lobbying group's alleged spies in exchange for favors from the lobbying group -- which is what TIME said the investigation entails.

Gven the political leaders whom you admire, it's not all that surprising that you consider such slimy corruption to be nothing other than mere just "politics." Under the law, though, that's called a "felony."

I strongly suspect that the fact that she shares the same views that are popular here on national security and war - the same ones the American people just resoundingly rejected -- is a strong factor, and it ought to be.

If you have to make sh*t up to make your case, don't be surprised when you step in it.

Finally, why don't you ask yourself why you are so eager to defend Democrat Jane Harman. The answer is the same one that is driving Nancy Pelosi to choose someone else for this critical spot. Americans rejected the views that you have about wars and foreign affairs and the last thing Pelosi ought to do is install someone in such a sensitive position who thinks the way you do.

Gee, now tell me why the LA Times and NY Times back Harman. The NY Times:

She can send a good signal, for instance, by appointing Representative Jane Harman of California as head of the Intelligence Committee. Ms. Harman has been the ranking Democrat, and she has, in general, done her job well. But some of her fellow members regard her as insufficiently aggressive when it comes to criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Pelosi, who does not get along well with Ms. Harman, is said to be considering Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, a former federal judge who was impeached on bribery charges and removed from the bench. If she wanted to put her wrong foot forward, that would be a good way to do it.

Shouldn't the "Pelosi backs Murtha" despite Abscam and muscling contractor's "crap" - standard be applied here? If not and Harmon is a 'horrendous" choice for chair than it certainly reflects "horrendous-ly" on Pelosi for choosing Murtha's "crap" over the majority preference and then Hastings.

If you have to choose between someone who has been accused of wrong doing and someone who has been convicted, I would chose the lesser of two evils, and take the person only accused. But that's just me, Democrats may see it differently, because a guy who sold his office as a Federal Judge for what, $150,000.00 can be trusted to oversee all U.S. intel efforts in the war on terror. No problem there. Ok, he was only convicted by a Democratic Senate of that, he skated on the Federal charge.

If you have to choose between someone who has been accused of wrong doing and someone who has been convicted, I would chose the lesser of two evils, and take the person only accused.

I already said I'd choose Harman over Hastings, but the point is (overlooked by the NYT) is that she can choose anyone she wants for that position. It's not a Harman-Hastings either-or.

The problem with Harman isn't the AIPAC investigation. It's that she is a reflexive supporter of the administration on national security/intelligence and war matters (which is not unrelated to the AIPAC love affair she has), and the voters clearly want (and the country needs) aggressive intelligence oversight, not an administration cheerleader. We've had enough of those, especially in the Congress. That's why we're in the predicament we're in.

HEH! Glenn isn't even in the same Planetary system as TM, and that is not praise of Glenn --something I must note to a person as clueless as you.

CLARICE - Seriously, will you explain again how the criminal investigation against Harman was a plot by the left? Honestly, that was one of my favorite comments ever and I'd be really interested in hearing you elaborate on that theory.

You know, alot of us left winger wacko types are assuming and stating as fact that America voted to give Congress to the Democrats because they oppose the war in Iraq.

But there were 435 Congressional candidates
and 1/3 of the Senate up. I have not seen any evidence that the Congress is now made up of cut and runners. Maybe the leadership is, but I doubt a majority will vote to cut off funding for the troops, or the war effort. I doubt they will pass any law requiring a draw down.

I think you will basically have a stay the course Congress that hopes for the best.

Don't you know that Greenwald’s book has been on the N.Y. Times Best Seller List for 6 weeks now or more. He is a graduate of a top 5 law school and worked at the most prestigious law firm in the country. In 9 months, he’s managed to become one of the most cited and heavily-trafficked bloggers on the internets. His posts have led to front page news articles and are read by U.S. Senators during Senate hearings.

"Finally, why don't you ask yourself why you are so eager to defend Democrat Jane Harman. The answer is the same one that is driving Nancy Pelosi to choose someone else for this critical spot. Americans rejected the views that you have about wars and foreign affairs and the last thing Pelosi ought to do is install someone in such a sensitive position who thinks the way you do."

Silly me, I prefer Harman because she is competent. But who cares about that? Not Glenn it seems. He thinks we had a referendum on the war and the people have spoken, let the retreat begin.

I know that in my district Ellsworth [the Democrat] made a point of telling us Hoosiers that he "did not even know Pelosi" and that he was not about to vote for cut and run. In fact the exit polls from that election indicated that only 30% of the voters actually supported bugging out of Iraq.

Maybe the Democrats need some alone time so that they can figure all this out for themselves because if it turns out that some of these new Democrats were lying to people just so that they would vote for them, it might back fire on them.

If Pelosi had come up with an alternative to Harman that was even sort of qualified I doubt that conservatives would really give a damn.

And if it turns out that nothing comes of the investigation and it is just another smear campaign and Harman is damaged for no other reason than the fact that Pelosi does not like her will she get her reputation back?

That matter revolved around a poorly forged document that was not properly vetted by the French officers until sentencing had been carried out. I just love sweeping generalizations that turn the search for the truth into antisemitism. That dog won't hunt
junior all-star.

Conservatives might want to soft-pedal this issue. Investigations, notwithstanding, will no doubt leave some game trails between AIPAC and the run up to war, heavily scented with influence.

Posted by: Semanticleo | November 17, 2006 at 04:17 PM

Oh yes the Joooos did it. It had nothing to do with that innocent lamb Saddam and more than a decade of noncompliance and shooting at planes and killing his own people and trying to kill a president and terrorizing his neighbors and gassing people and aiding international terrorism and all the rest of it...the war happened because of the Joooooos.

Why is it the person who has actually seen the intelligence is the one who is wrong? Could it be, never having seen what Ms. Harman has seen, you are the one that is playing cheerleader for the anti-Bush crowd?

Lets see, a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority. Breaks a story on his blog about wiretapping that leads to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. Russ Feingold reads from his blog during the Censure hearings.

Any conservative bloggers with credentials like that? All compiled in 9 months or however long its been since he started blogging?

Did the super duper smart man Glenn explain to us dummies just how it is the majority of Americans are going to get behind the Democrat's plan for the war when the majority of Americans don't think the Democrats have a plan?

John Kerry admits in front of a committee of the US Senate that he; not only met with enemies of the United States during time of War, but that he adopted and was promoting
their point of view. As a result, he was nominated by the Democrats as their candidate
to be president of the United States.
Jane Harmon talks to American people who
support a country that is generally considered
an American ally and the Democrats do everything they can to destroy her politically. Had She flown to Syria and
revealed American secrets, it looks like she could have retained her position.
No wonder the Communist Party of America is so eager to have the Democrats in charge.

New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi introduced Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a Queens College commencement ceremony as someone who would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he thought he could get away with it."

Eat your weasel sandwich walkin’., bonehead.
Retreat to the hedgehog hole you hide in when there is an issue that smokes out your patriot’s pantomime.
Hire a nurse to bleed your bloodless brakelines and purge the air from your hollow mantra. Free that rotting carcass from the bloating gases that envelop your psyche and let us all breathe some fresh air for a change. Take your elemental excretions and discharge your venal screed on another site.

Anti-semanticleo...
You may want to read up on the Anti-Jewish winds blowing over at Deans DNC:

"""The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration “neocons” so “the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.” He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

“Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,” McGovern said. ‘The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.”

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq’s threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his “candid answer.”

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations—that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an “insider trading scam” on 9/11—that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

Smanticleo, if you feel Jim Morans comments, or John Conyers hearing, or painting Lieberman in blackface, or even Al Sharpton are being misinterpreted as Democrats in good standing, by all means please defend their comments and actions.

Rather then name calling, how about you tell us why all these Democrats get away with blaming Jews for everything??

Democrat Cynthia McKinney ran a stridently anti-Semitic campaign in 2002; when she was defeated in that campaign she blamed the Jews for her defeat (her father, who also has a history of anti-Semitism, spelled out publicly who was responsible “J-E-W-S”).
-----
McKinney’s colleague Alabama Democrat Earl Hilliard had a history of anti-Israel positions and used anti-Semitism to appeal to his constituents. His opponent was Artur Davis. Hilliard’s campaign slogan was “Davis and the Jews, bad for the black belt”.

The most senior Democrat from Michigan, John Dingell, declared himself ambivalent about which side he wanted to win in the war between Hezb’allah and Israel. Hezb’allah has in its charter that its goal is a genocide against the Jews (not “just” the destruction of Israel.

The Democratic nominee for Congress in Minnesota’s Fifth District, Keith Ellison, is a Black Muslim who has a long history of anti-Semitism that he has tried to obfuscate by a variety of means-including name changes and pseudonyms. He seems to be following the Cynthia McKinney playbook.

Of course, I saw the Time link in GG's post that Tom linked to. But I didn't click through because Tom hadn't given me permission to do so. It is easy for Tom to conceal things from us because we are so cultlike.

All this jockeying for position in the Democrat party is reminiscent of antics that went on at the court of Louis XIV at Versailles,Courtiers schemed to be allowed a chair when most stood,for hours,or had a miserable stool.

And of course, a NYT article written a few days after a TIME article is much more reliable because it was written a few days later.

The Tom Maguire Method of determining who is right: whoever speaks last is correct.

Gee, I have the idea that after one person makes a claim, subsequent researchers validate or refute it. I would call this, very broadly speaking, the "scientific method"; if you insist on attempting to rename it the "Tom Maguire method", modesty will compel me to demur.

As it relates to journalism, the normal hope is that subsequent reporting pins down various details that may have not been a focus of the original story - I'll bet that TIME thought there lead was that Harman was under investigation - the timing is secondary to the undelrying fact. (And it is not as if TIME would never hype a potential criminal case).

Oh, well - I suppose the alternative is, the first person to speak is assumed to have every fact nailed down and can not be subsequently questioned. Perhaps you would like to call that the "Glenn Greenwald Approach", but most folks will recognize it as "divine revelation".

Oh, well, I lost the thread after being informed that Glenn prefers Harman over Hastings but that I am a reflexive neocon for doing the same. It hardly seems fair to point out that I said a few days back that the obvious answer is to go with Reyes, Vietnam vet, Border Patrol agent, and no doubt a great guy.

--Gee, I have the idea that after one person makes a claim, subsequent researchers validate or refute it. I would call this, very broadly speaking, the "scientific method"; if you insist on attempting to rename it the "Tom Maguire method", modesty will compel me to demur.--

TM

I happen to think you are in a good postion here...

'Hubris' also notes that the following day the "senior administration official" was downgraded to an "administration aide", and tell us that the WaPo discussed running a correction but figured, why bother.

So, TM, do you fault Fox News for running the "FBI Investigating" headline a day after the NYT article?

That was a good catch, Foo Bar. As you know, the headline writer is generally *not* the author of the piece, so sometimes subtleties get lost in translation to a short, snappy phrase.

Were Solomon here, he would probably rule that both Greenwald and I are "wrong", since neither of us are in a position to state without reservation the status of the Harman investigation.

However, my conscience is clear, because I am quite sincere is thinking that the subsequent reporting gets priority. But that aside, it is at least obvious from my post that there are two sides to the question - nothing Greenwald said or linked to would have left someone thinking the isssue was in dispute.

My headline (written by me!), "Jane Harman Is *NOT* "Currently" Under Investigation", is clearly not provable, but the evidence is there. A better headline, "Harman *May Not* Be Under Investigation" would be unarguable, but then I would miss your company.

I'm so sick of Glenn Greenwald and Fox News teaming up to slander people. When will it end?

I, too, grow weary of the far right and loony left beating up earnest centrists who carry a Times/LA Times/WaPo endorsement... well, unless I am doing the beating.

Did the super duper smart man Glenn explain to us dummies just how it is the majority of Americans are going to get behind the Democrat's plan for the war when the majority of Americans don't think the Democrats have a plan?

Okey dokey, no one wants to address Inhofe. But it seems all too predictable that a coming news cycle will juxtapose Pelosi/Harman and Inhofe/Warner... Writ small, seems like a potential replay of Hastert's brilliant move to take the spotlight off Jefferson.

Not to worry. I have it on good authority by several not-to-be-named high-level sources, who can't speak on the record because they have not been authorized to do so, that the Dem plan for the war will be unveiled in 24-business hours.

sometimes subtleties get lost in translation to a short, snappy phrase.

In both cases the language of the one-sentence summary suggested an active investigation. Whether it was a matter in either instance of a subtlety getting lost or a shameful mischaracterization depends on one's prior beliefs about the author's inclination to be fair and balanced, I suppose.

but no specific editorial backing Harman.

Maybe not, but there was this WaPo piece with the following lede paragraph (which you might consider citing to bolster your case):

Federal law enforcement sources confirmed yesterday that the FBI opened an investigation in 2005 into whether Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) improperly enlisted the aid of a pro-Israel lobbying group, but they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

Foo Bar, you are reliably fair and balanced, but I am troubled by this independent research you are doing - per Greenwald, my readers are not supposed to know any more than I tell them - what kind of a blog is this, anyway?

--my readers are not supposed to know any more than I tell them - what kind of a blog is this, anyway?--

Sssshhh TM...do NOT let on to the super secret Browser, described in the cult manifesto, downloaded into our machines that allows for ONLY JOM viewing and no googling! or clicking!....manifesto rule number 1 was strict secrecy.

Pelosi=> Peloser?
Pu-leeze. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, it's the execution.

I'm sure there will be many repeats of Madame Speaker making the crony-rewarding (Murtha)/vendetta-settling(Harman) play and getting slapped down by her caucus. I'm already thinking of her as a 'one-trick Pelosi.'

Well not to worry, cause as we've already seen in todays previous posts, if Alcee Hasting's gets the job it'll be a "Win Win" for Pelosi, and if Jane Harmon gets the job it'll be a "Win Win" for Pelosi, or even if Klem Kadiddlehopper or King Solomon or Brazilian Cabana-boys get the job it'll be a Win Win for Pelosi.
Pelosi + Candidate (X) = Win Win. (And you thought I didn't know squat about that there Scientific Method stuff!)

Backdoor Rahm finagling (he's smarter than she), got number 3 to be an African American, so placated the CBC - CBC mad because the new speaker made Billy Jeff with his carefully tin-foiled, then stuffed in frozen food containered marked money step aside from his ways/means committee post.

They are looking to put a "hispanic" in the Intelligence leader post now.

And we get no respect. The Boomer jokes, the Sooner jokes, Texas lording it over us all the time some mean older brother and then of course there is the whole Dust Bowl/Grapes of Wrath thing. Not to mention the Indian Territory/No Man's Land thing.

Okies have to put up with a lot of crap. It is not fair. I say we need an Okie Antidefamation League or something.

One time I saw my Daddy threaten to kick a man's butt because he called him an Okie. People can be so cruel.

Would it be too much to have expected the Democrats to have sorted all this out before the election? Some policies would no go amiss,"Hit the ground running" as it were rather than "Hit each other,scratching,biting and pulling hair".
It might also be appropriate that the Democrats take note that the rest of the world is watching,this girls school behaivior is amusing your enemies and disconcerting your friends.